Originally posted by jdub297
Around the world and across America, people of all stations and walks of life are coming to realize that something has gone terribly wrong with their
expectations for the “Hope and Change” of Barack Obama.
Although criticism from the right was to be expected, who would’ve guessed that only 30 months into his term as the 44th president, Barack Obama
would be taking hits from Washington Post liberals, New York Times commenters and Harvard intellectuals?
I think someone has never read the Washington Post, new York Times, or listened to an average "Harvard intellectual." Basically these are just dog
whistles meant to perk the ears of morons who have been trained to believe these are "bastions of liberalness." Yeah, morons.
To answer the question though; anyone who's ever paid attention to anything, ever. The president is receiving criticism? Why, that's just unheard
You would’ve been declared insane if you’d asserted that Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus would be outspoken
in their criticism of the first black president; or that Black leaders Tavis Smiley and Cornell West would be leading their own cross-country tour
openly challenging his policies.
Not if you'd been paying attention to these folks through his campaign and administration. See, you've clearly not
done so, instead operating
on the assumption that "He's black so they love him unquestioningly!" - that's not the case. It's never been the case. Black political groups have
been first in line to grab Obama by hte ears and yank him around from the moment he started campaigning.
As it would have been described in ancient prose, and as many modern Americans would’ve predicted, “the scales fell from their eyes, and
they could now see.”
What is it that so many were once blinded to, but can now see?
Having scales on one's eyes implies the ignorance of the person bearing those scales in the first place. And you know what, a lot of Americans were
very terribly uninformed about Obama. He wasn't hiding anything, rather, so many of my fellow Americans and Democrats chose to make wild assumptions
that were never actually reflected in Obama's platform. I'm still
stunned that there were Democrats who campaigned for hte guy... and are
surprised that he didn't push universal health care and expanded the war in Afghanistan. Learn the platform of your candidates, morons.
That a student with poor grades, a man with no professional accomplishments, and a politician with no significant legislation is not qualified
to be President of the United States solely because of his race.
That Barack Hussein Obama is failing as the first Affirmative Action president.
You realize that this more accurately describes the 43 presidents before him, don't you? 'Cause, well... name a genius president (Wilson, maybe. The
rest were all mediocre.) Now name a president who pushed magnificent legislation... Kennedy, maybe? I doubt that, his dad was better at that. Now, the
racial component... You're aware that the majority of our nations' presidents came into the position in periods of hour history where a black person
could be shot for any reason and there would be no charge of murder, right? You're aware that Obama faced - and still faces - opposition based on his
skin color, don't you?
If he'd been white, he would have swept the board like Reagan in '84 (and if Reagan had been black, he would have lost like Mondale in '84
Dana Milbank, uber liberal political correspondent for the Washington Post made the striking observation last week, that:
The most powerful man in the world seems strangely powerless, and irresolute, as larger forces bring down the country and his presidency.
The most powerful man on Earth?
This wasn’t just some off-the cuff observation. Milbank described in detail Obama’s recent performance in the run-up to and aftermath of the S&P
The economy crawls, the credit rating falls, the markets plunge, and a helicopter packed with U.S. special forces goes down in Afghanistan. Two
thirds of Americans say the country is on the wrong track (and that was before the market swooned), Obama’s approval rating is 43 percent, and
activists on his own side are calling him weak.
Yet Obama plods along, raising gobs of cash for his reelection bid and varying little the words he reads from the teleprompter. He seemed detached
even from those words Monday as he pivoted his head from side to side, proclaiming that “our problems is not confidence in our credit” and turning
his bipartisan fiscal commission into a “biparticle.”
Biparticle? What would the liberal MSM have done if a GOP or TeaParty candidate had said that at a fundraiser? Of course, that was
never reported about BHO, formerly, “the One.”
The "liberal media" would have given radio silence. Have we been hearing much about the asinine, pro-corporatist, anti-American policy ideas kicked
around last week in Iowa? Newp! Romney stomps around defending corporate personhood over actual person personhood, and it gets, what, half-article
coverage for one night. Helps that the media is made of five corporate persons, I suppose!
And I just want to take a moment to point out... the media is not liberal. "Not as #ing crazy as Fox news" does not directly translate into "liberal"
except among the moron crowd, that feel anyone to the left of Margaret Thatcher should be gunned down in the street.
One of Milbanks cohorts at WaPo, Richard Cohen, bemoans the fact that:
Obama … is the very personification of cognitive dissonance — the gap between what we (especially liberals) expected of the first serious
African American presidential candidate and the man he in fact is.
Never mind that John McCain mocked Obama for "leading from behind."
Jesse Jackson also criticized him:
"The Republicans feel they can keep pushing and he will keep giving," he said. "They have not seen a stiff resistance on his part."
Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff criticized Obama's concessions in the debt-ceiling wrangle.
"He was holding all the cards and he was still stared down by the Tea Party."
"He got gamed into making giant concessions, and this has weakened the presidency."
And the loss of leadership is felt around the world, as Obama sycophant E. J. Dionne sadly notes:
Can America still lead? Millions of people around the world had hoped in vain that Obama would restore the United States to a position of
responsible global leadership. America's friends overseas … worry now about how strong Obama is, whether he will draw lines and if he can seize back
So, how did we get to this point? What realization has come that has saddened, disappointed and enraged Obama’s staunchest allies and
That Obama was totally unqualified to serve in the capacity to which to was elected!
You didn't read any of these did you? The complaint is that Obama is essentially caving to the republicans. if your argument is that this makes him
"unfit to lead," then well, that doesn't say a whole lot about hte folks you're obviously rooting for here, does it?
Everyone you excerpted wants him to take stronger, more liberal positions. it's not a statement of his "incompetence," it's a complaint on the
direction his administration is taking - it's pulling a hard center-right course, and the liberal base detests it (As should most Americans, but
remember, most Americans are the reason curling irons are labeled with "external use only")
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of
mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile
so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test
scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact
nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of
which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual
mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it
all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Obama: The Affirmative ActionPresident
So, if all that is true, how did Barack Obama get elected?
Well, you're betting on a huge
"if" there. consider the source. you're citing an article from a WND author, posted on a hard-right news
collection site, titled "the affirmative action" president. Just a few falsehoods in the part you excerpted:
- Obama has no fewer personal achievements than any other president, as already noted. he certainly surpasses the previous fellow in the oval office,
whose achievements consisted mostly of snorting lots of coke out of lots of hookers' asscracks and frying mentally handicapped people.
- A future historian would not note anything that divides Obama especially from all the other "Ivy leaguers" that have held the presidency. Except
perhaps the odds of a multiracial child of a twice-married mother raised by his grandparents in the 70's could even manage to get into an Ivy League
school in the first place. it's bait of a different situation than say, Bush or Kerry or Kennedy had, with their generational wealth and family
connections, isn't it?.
- Jeremiah Wright does not hate white people. See, this is another position taken by morons and racists - that any black person who speaks on racial
issues "hates white people." Martin king got this treatment, too - see, the mentality is that only white people are qualified to talk about such
matters at all. it's a hilarious standard.
- Bill Ayers blew the head off a statue. Vandalism is not terrorism.
To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant
terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have
hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
What happened to Obama? Nothing.
But wait! There may be another explanation, as offered by Norman Podhoretz:
The initial assumption is incorrect. How many presidents considered Milton Friedman a dear and personal friend? All of them from Nixon onward, isn't
it? So which is more a danger to America, a preacher who condemns America for its imperialist wars, or the economic terrorist that is trusted to write
Oh right, Friedman's not black, he gets a pass.
"What Happened to Obama?" is that nothing happened to him. He is still the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president,
and it is this rather than inexperience or incompetence or weakness or stupidity that accounts for the richly deserved failure both at home and abroad
of the policies stemming from that reprehensible cast of mind.
edit on 18-8-2011 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)
Obama's not a leftist. I harbor doubts he could spell the word, much less live it.
edit on 19/8/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason